Timeline for Why aren't representations of monoids studied so much?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S May 16, 2023 at 14:55 | history | suggested | cngzz1 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed grammar, corrected spelling.
|
| May 16, 2023 at 14:11 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 16, 2023 at 14:55 | |||||
| Jul 18, 2013 at 8:41 | history | edited | Emerton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Aug 31, 2010 at 2:57 | comment | added | Emerton | Dear Victor, I agree. On the other hand, one can sometimes think of positive Krull dimension modules as a kind of "direct integral" of their fibres over the points of their support, which is just to say, the divisions between module theory as in commutative algebra, and spectral theory and its applications in representation theory, maybe aren't as great as they are conventionally made out to be. | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 2:35 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | I think the reason the classical representation theory point of view isn't helpful for the study of toric algebras is that modules of interest are very far from being simple and, in fact, have positive Krull dimension. Many tools in commutative algebra (and also in the theory of operator algebras in the functional analysis setting) have been developed specifically to apply to such "large" modules. | |
| Aug 30, 2010 at 15:54 | history | answered | Emerton | CC BY-SA 2.5 |